Sea Fishing Licence - would you pay?

[steve good]

Then show a thousand pictures of "how a seabed is effected by a trawl" , show it for differnet environments, show it before and after, then show it after an hour, after a day, a week, a year,.

 

The salmon farm protesters are fond of putting up pictures taken dirierctly underneath a cage so we all go "omg thats awful!" . Theres often a "dead zone" directly underneath, where so much organic matter has hit the seabed that the biological processes strip the immediate area of oxygen and the anerobic life takes over. Typically what you get is a lot of very few species. If you show that photo in a paper then all those that know nothing about the industry have reason to get upset.

 

BUT, if you were to swim out a few meters from that "dead zone" (though i dunno who decides that the creatures that inhabit that bit are "dead" ) you move through zones where you get more and more diversity, until a few meters from the cage you hit the "normal" seabed life. Funnily enough, i never see th salmon farm protesters or the newspapers that "report" their press releases giving us details

 

This stuff, the effect of organic loading on a small "area" is not news, has been well studied and plenty of measures have been put in place monitor it. Its well understood, and will diisapere once the farm is moved. We always hear only about the dead zone, about how Scottish Lochs are being killed by salmon farming; what we never see is the amazing life that develops on the structure of the farm, and how ir you took that footprint up to the surface you would actually have far more life and more diversity than existed on that patch before.

 

Same goes with you posting a couple of random seabed photos to show the effect of trawling on an area. For sure trawling will have an effect, but its going to be different depending on the part of world, the depth, exposure, etc etc. In my area the sea tends to belch up considerable amounts of marine life every winter as the gales hit in. I'd imagine a trawler has little impact compared to nature in this situation. But if i took a summer and winter photograph no doubt someone would strip away the facts and use them to their advantage?

 

Hi Jaffa

 

More immportantly I do not see pictures posted that show the true affects of aggregate dredging everone burys there head in the sand over that one but jumps on the band wagon with pictures to knock the fishing industry when a hermit crab gets a headache after being run over by an otter board lol

 

steve

[obe1]

The did it in the States on an option basis so that some coastal states have a license and some do not.

 

Guess where the best shore and close inshore fishing is. If you guess that license = better fishing you will be correct.

 

The money does go into improving habitat and similar conservation measures and on that basis, it would seem to be a good thing.

 

 

Although it was originaly optional the federal government now say all states have to have a licence by 2012.

 

There may be better fish but that is because in the states they control there own fishery policies and have decreased commercial fishing, this will not happen here.

 

If the fishing is so good then why is the Recreational Fishing Alliance introducing "freedom to fish bills" in California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington, it's alright having better fish but if you've lost up to half of your fishing ground then how does that benefit the average RSA?

 

Joe

[obe1]

Also what makes me cry is the fairness of the system, commercially they were given their licence free by the gov, now commercial have turned that into a multi mill business, now there is only weak proposels to charge them a licence over the rsa on the grounds that it would be an unfair on commercial, regards other eu countries. So gov uk should hand out the rsa free licences. That would be transparent of them.

 

If they run it on the lines of the fresh water one, more than a third of the yearly budjet spent is funded by the ratepayer, as the licence money does not cover the costs.

 

 

Barry it used to be more than a 3rd but it keeps dropping, at the moment it's down to 29%. Just shows how much the government is commited to angling when it keeps cutting funding.

 

Joe

[H.A.]

Then show a thousand pictures of "how a seabed is effected by a trawl" , show it for differnet environments, show it before and after, then show it after an hour, after a day, a week, a year,.

 

Do what I do. Add to your own experiences, the findings in every scrap of research you can get your hands on (these are a fraction of the randomly available scientific papers relating to the discussion; check the bibliographies for more!):

 

http://www.sos.bangor.ac.uk/~oss405/amb.html

 

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1566

 

http://www.eurocbc.org/jembex286_286.pdf

 

http://www.eurocbc.org/envimpact_trawlseabed_review.pdf

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...926ec1b215115bc

 

 

I have no hesitation in drawing the following conclusions from the scientific research, which comes from diversely funded and broad sponsorships including the EU and CEFAS ………

 

1. Seabed damage –

 

Research has established that the degree of environmental perturbation from bottom trawling activities is related to the weight of the gear on the seabed, the towing

speed, the nature of the bottom sediments, and the strength of the tides and currents. The greater the frequency of gear impact on an area, the greater the

likelihood of permanent change. In deep water where the fauna is less adapted to changes in sediment regimes and disturbance from storm events, the effects of gear take longer to disappear. In shallow water, the seasonal effects of storms and currents mean that most of the damage is never repaired and nothing re-establishes until trawling stops.

 

2. Overfishing –

 

Most of the problems associated with overfishing have been caused in the last 50 years by the rapid advances in fishing technology coupled with intensive, senseless overfishing. There used to be hundreds of trawlers and fishing boats based at ports like Peterhead, Grimsby and Great Yarmouth. How many registered trawlers at Gt Yarmouth now??????

 

ONE.

 

‘Fishing is not a cottage industry any longer, but hi-tech, big business. State-of-the-art technology allows fleets to scoop up every last scrawny little fish from the oceans. As the collapse of cod stocks in Newfoundland illustrates, fishermen will continue fishing until there is nothing left, even if they do themselves out of a job in the long-term. Fishermen the world over have a poor track record in shouldering any responsibility for collapsing fish stocks, not to mention a lazy habit of blaming their counterparts elsewhere. The Scots accuse the Spaniards, the Spanish point the finger at the Japanese, the Japanese blame the Russians. It is custom and practice for the fishermen of one country to shift the responsibility to those of another. The truth is that fishermen everywhere need to be reminded that the sea doesn't owe them a living. Instead, they must start thinking of themselves as citizens entrusted with managing a precious communal resource. (Sunday Herald Jan 2008)’

 

What we get here is unrepresentative bunch of commercial sympathisers on the forum who blame individual member-posters for what a thousand pieces of properly conducted research have been saying for 20 years.

 

I know who I believe.

 

You can all, well enough, make up your own minds.

 

[barry luxton]

Hello Barry

 

What’s the full story on this charter boat issue?

 

I have a copy of the SSFC bylaws, it's a bit old but I am not aware of any changes.

It states that any vessel of more than 18 meters or has the engine power which exceeds 300 horse power can fish in their territorial waters.

I have checked and it is much the same for all the other FC's.

 

Have the boats in question got engines of more than 300 HP? I suspect this is what the issue is about.

 

I am not condoning the FC stance in any way but I think this sort of thing will probably crop up more often in one form or another and it won't be just FC's implementing the rules, it will be the down side of RSA demanding more involvement in fishery management.

 

Sorry Wurzel i missed this one, must be getting confused. At present to ssfc has written to the charter skippers of boats over twelve stating that if they fish within the 6 mile limit they will be prosecuted. As their the ssfc brief is regarding conservation the differance between twelve and over is of no consequence as all are licenced for ten anglers maximum. Obviously during the winter the skippers rely on the inshore fishing weather wise, also within six mile is the deep hole, several banks for bream, rays, portland race etc. so the likes of pat carlin who have fished there for years are being told, you can't. Most of the cats certainly have more than 300hp, It must be a local by-law that they keep refering to. Regarding crappy weather, obviously the bigger the boat, more safer it is.

 

They have approached the ssfc and also ministers etc to as for dispensation, to date, no success. As others have posted it was designed to keep the larger trawlers etc out but unfortunatly some jobsworth have picked up on the fact that some of the charter boats are over ten. There are others that are affected, but i don't know of them. This is to be further discussed by the ssfc on the 19th of this month, interesting times ahead.

Edited January 15, 2008 by barry luxton

[steve good]

Do what I do. Add to your own experiences, the findings in every scrap of research you can get your hands on (these are a fraction of the randomly available scientific papers relating to the discussion; check the bibliographies for more!):

 

http://www.sos.bangor.ac.uk/~oss405/amb.html

 

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1566

 

http://www.eurocbc.org/jembex286_286.pdf

 

http://www.eurocbc.org/envimpact_trawlseabed_review.pdf

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...926ec1b215115bc

I have no hesitation in drawing the following conclusions from the scientific research, which comes from diversely funded and broad sponsorships including the EU and CEFAS ………

 

1. Seabed damage –

 

Research has established that the degree of environmental perturbation from bottom trawling activities is related to the weight of the gear on the seabed, the towing

speed, the nature of the bottom sediments, and the strength of the tides and currents. The greater the frequency of gear impact on an area, the greater the

likelihood of permanent change. In deep water where the fauna is less adapted to changes in sediment regimes and disturbance from storm events, the effects of gear take longer to disappear. In shallow water, the seasonal effects of storms and currents mean that most of the damage is never repaired and nothing re-establishes until trawling stops.

 

2. Overfishing –

 

Most of the problems associated with overfishing have been caused in the last 50 years by the rapid advances in fishing technology coupled with intensive, senseless overfishing. There used to be hundreds of trawlers and fishing boats based at ports like Peterhead, Grimsby and Great Yarmouth. How many registered trawlers at Gt Yarmouth now??????

 

ONE.

What we get here is unrepresentative bunch of commercial sympathisers on the forum who blame individual member-posters for what a thousand pieces of properly conducted research have been saying for 20 years.

 

I know who I believe.

 

You can all, well enough, make up your own minds.

 

 

Hi H.A

 

Ok so you have found some evidence that may prove that trawling may do some damage, wether it is more damage than 2 million anglers dragging there gear in, ripping seaweed off the bottom is debatable

 

You are getting upset by what you can see from the beach, which is afew small commercials trying to earn aliving, they are not greedy, there is nothing to get greedy about, they do not catch that much, its a grind just to earn aliving.

 

I know you have good intendions but you are missing the bigger picture

 

You feel that because you can see afew commercials from the beach that they are catching the fish that you would catch, as the cause to your lack of more and larger fish,

 

Reallity and the fact of the matter is this, there has never been many UK trawlers in this area, if you have noticed a decrease in your catches it may be caused by many differant reasons, ie: more beach anglers, aggregate dredging decreasing the food and breeding stock, other EU commercial fishermen that trawl and seine large amounts of fish when they leave our inshore waters, to name just afew reasons.

 

So if you think that by getting the small under 10 mtr boats banned from your eyeshot will sort out your problems then you will be very disappointed.

 

You and alot of others such as RSA reps need to learn from commercials in the right way so as to go forward and achieve something meaningful other wise you will be just xissing in the wind

 

Learn from the bass mls, it was sensible revoked because the bass management plan did not know about the amount of senseless discards that it would have created

 

I am not out to be-little your case but you need to know and understand the whole bigger picture and it is not doing you justice by harping on about what you can only see from the beach

 

DEFRA know these facts and take them into consideration when determining anything like banning trawling

steve

Edited January 15, 2008 by steve good

[H.A.]

Steve

 

You are quite wrong to think you can read my mind.

You also treat my deductions from the evidence I have seen to be merely as a beach angler-observer. Quite wrong.

You have a right to put forward your views, but don't link me with them in any way.

 

I think you'll find the amount of evidence based on valid scientific data and observation is overwhelming regarding damage caused by scraping the seabed clean.

 

Ok so you have found some evidence that may prove that trawling may do some damage, wether it is more damage than 2 million anglers dragging there gear in, ripping seaweed off the bottom is debatable

No comment; but you wipe away your own credibility in one swoop with that one!

 

No one can argue with some of others' comments (not mine) that 'fishermen will continue fishing until there is nothing left, even if they do themselves out of a job in the long-term' ... look at the fleet figures for the UK in the past decade.

The 'industry' is contracting of its own destructive accord.

 

Your conclusions "need to learn from commercials in the right way" are laughable and I'm reminded again of the Laurel and Hardy line: "Another fine mess you've got us into".

 

[barry luxton]

Hi H.A

 

 

You are getting upset by what you can see from the beach, which is afew small commercials trying to earn aliving, they are not greedy, there is nothing to get greedy about, they do not catch that much, its a grind just to earn aliving.

 

 

 

Learn from the bass mls, it was sensible revoked because the bass management plan did not know about the amount of senseless discards that it would have created

 

steve

 

Fish markets have just posted record amount of landings, just to earn a living?

 

Discard are in the hands of the guys who produce it. Remember before the quota was set there was record amount of discard pushed into the public domain, used to up the quota. Directly before quota was set, 'Oh discard, yes we can do something about discard, used to gain extra days at sea'.

 

Are bass any different from any other fish stock that the fishermen cannot do anything to alieviate discard, only if they want to.?

[steve good]

Steve

 

You are quite wrong to think you can read my mind.

You also treat my deductions from the evidence I have seen to be merely as a beach angler-observer. Quite wrong.

You have a right to put forward your views, but don't link me with them in any way.

 

I think you'll find the amount of evidence based on valid scientific data and observation is overwhelming regarding damage caused by scraping the seabed clean.

No comment; but you wipe away your own credibility in one swoop with that one!

 

No one can argue with some of others' comments (not mine) that 'fishermen will continue fishing until there is nothing left, even if they do themselves out of a job in the long-term' ... look at the fleet figures for the UK in the past decade.

The 'industry' is contracting of its own destructive accord.

 

Your conclusions "need to learn from commercials in the right way" are laughable and I'm reminded again of the Laurel and Hardy line: "Another fine mess you've got us into".

 

 

Hi H.A

 

quote/ look at the fleet figures for the UK in the past decade.

The 'industry' is contracting of its own destructive accord.

 

This quote just shows your lack of understand regarding this situation. For your information the Uk fishing fleet is falling because of the small quotas that we have compared to other EU member states and what I believe is the imcompedent way these quotas are shared out, that combined with de-commissioning is destroying our fishing industry.

 

The fishing industry is NOT self destructing on its own accord as you say, any one can pick one item out of the bigger picture and make great play over it which is what you are doing and thats laughable

 

Perhaps you should drop your Laurel and Hardy friends and find some that fully understand ALL the problems that face the fishing industry, you need to learn to take a more measured veiw

 

If you were to go out and see for yourself what other EU fishing vessels are doing off our coast and watch them crane their codends in you would realise whow out of turn your views are

 

steve

[barry luxton]

If you were to go out and see for yourself what other EU fishing vessels are doing off our coast and watch them crane their codends in you would realise whow out of turn your views are

 

steve

 

This is where the eu auditors have picked up on the amount of un-controlled fishing carried out by the eu. They are saying that goverments and also fishing communities are not playing to the rules, failing to provide enough information to make the cfp work. They are the ones that do not want it to work, one, to blame the rules and second, that is when they will have to take less. Only then there might be more to go around?